Here’s a defense we can all feel good about
JOE POSNANSKI
The Kansas City Star

Previous columns
The Second Guess marvels at how much better everyone in town feels after a Chiefs 41-0 victory. True, it was the San Francisco 49ers (Slogan: You think we’re bad, look across the Bay). But a dominating performance over any team always clears the autumn sinuses.

The question now: Just how good is this Chiefs defense? It’s only three games. But:

• The Chiefs are third in the NFL in total defense, allowing 240 yards per game.

•They are sixth in points allowed per game (10.7).

•They have not allowed a touchdown in 10 quarters.

•They have allowed only one play all year longer than 25 yards.

The last of those statistics is particularly stunning. The last few years, this was the Andrew Lloyd Webber defense — big play after big play. So, is this new stinginess for real? You know, with Tamba Hali and Jared Allen creating havoc on the outside, linebacker Derrick Johnson coming into his own, and two veteran former Pro Bowl cornerbacks — it just might be real.

“Oh, we’re pretty good,” Chiefs coach Herm Edwards said. “We’ve still got a lot to do to get where I’m talking about. We still have a ways to go to become a dominant defense. But we’re pretty good. It’s coming together.” Pretty close? How close?

“I’d say we could use three more players,” Edwards said. “But we’ll get them. Shoot, we might have them here right now. It’s coming. Tell everybody: It’s coming.”

•••

InChiefsHell

10-03-2006, 09:22 AM

C'mon HErm, which three players do we need??

I'm guessing 2 DT's and one linebacker.

JBucc

10-03-2006, 09:22 AM

A DT or two, maybe Fox to step up at LB, and the safeties which we already have. Sounds like a plan. Now fix the O-line.

unlurking

10-03-2006, 09:26 AM

I'm with you guys, 2 DTs and either a safety or a LB. Hell, 1 DT, 1 LB, and 1 safety would do it as well.

NJ Chief Fan

10-03-2006, 09:30 AM

is it page, pollard, and fox hermie?

unlurking

10-03-2006, 09:32 AM

is it page, pollard, and fox hermie?
I could go with that for 2 of the 3 players, but I think a DT would probably be the number 1 requirement.

banyon

10-03-2006, 09:33 AM

Bell, Sims and Knight are the guys that gotta be replaced.

CupidStunt

10-03-2006, 09:35 AM

I'd settle for 1 DT, 1 LB and 1 S.

MichaelH

10-03-2006, 09:35 AM

The problem is that by the time they get what they need, others will be too old. Law, Knight and Surtain are headed that way.

cdcox

10-03-2006, 09:36 AM

There are 5 positions where we the play could be better: both DT, both S, and 1 LB. We don't need stars at all 5 of those positions. If we had significantly better play at 3 of them, yeah, the defense would be dominant.

TinyEvel

10-03-2006, 09:37 AM

ironic.
i'm just driving to work thinking what's left to improve on the D personnel.
Thinking DTs.
then I see this.
Life immitates board.

cdcox

10-03-2006, 09:38 AM

The problem is that by the time they get what they need, others will be too old. Law, Knight and Surtain are headed that way.

Pollard or Page will replace Knight pretty seemlessly next year. If one of those guys develops into a ver good safety (pro-bowl or just below) that's one position down and 2 to go. You are right about Law and Surtain though, their clock is ticking.

FAX

10-03-2006, 09:39 AM

The funny thing is, we're about 3 players away from having a dominant offense, too.

FAX

Rain Man

10-03-2006, 09:39 AM

While I like Herm's attitude, I'll point out that pretty much any defense would be dominant if it had 14 players.

Easy 6

10-03-2006, 09:40 AM

Joe busted out the beautiful truth there. I Honestly believe we are 1 mad-dog DT next to Reed away from elite. As a lot of you guys are saying i wanna see it every week, game in, game out to. I believe we will.........our mix of up and coming young stars and vet savvy is looking CHERRY. :arrow:

Rain Man

10-03-2006, 09:40 AM

The funny thing is, we're about 3 players away from having a dominant offense, too.

FAX

And they were all on our roster at the end of last season, too.

htismaqe

10-03-2006, 09:40 AM

I agree with most that we need to improve at DT, FS, SS, and OLB.

The only one that's not already on the team, though, is DT. We have 1 DT, both safeties, and our OLB already on the roster.

cdcox

10-03-2006, 09:41 AM

The funny thing is, we're about 3 players away from having a dominant offense, too.

FAX

Two tackles and a QB :banghead:

cdcox

10-03-2006, 09:43 AM

I agree with most that we need to improve at DT, FS, SS, and OLB.

The only one that's not already on the team, though, is DT. We have 1 DT, both safeties, and our OLB already on the roster.

If only we had invested some high round draft picks in defensive tackles over the last few years...

htismaqe

10-03-2006, 09:44 AM

If only we had invested some high round draft picks in defensive tackles over the last few years...

Be careful there. Wouldn't want to unfairly throw Vermeil under the bus...

cdcox

10-03-2006, 09:44 AM

Be careful there. Wouldn't want to unfairly throw Vermeil under the bus...

But is it okay to fairly throw him under the bus?

htismaqe

10-03-2006, 09:47 AM

But is it okay to fairly throw him under the bus?

ROFL

noa

10-03-2006, 09:51 AM

Maybe we can turn Page into a corner and Law into a safety in a couple years.

RedThat

10-03-2006, 09:55 AM

I think we need a dominating DT. Thats whats truly missing on this Defensive line. We don't have that.

We also need another OLB to play with Mitchell, and Johnson. I think we MAY have that on our roster in Keyaron Fox.

AND, we could use a safety. Could we have that on our roster also? :shrug: Page? Pollard?

Wile_E_Coyote

10-03-2006, 09:57 AM

Maybe we can turn the Page into a corner and Law into a safety in a couple years.

the ol safety to corner with a Bob Seger reference to boot

rep

pr_capone

10-03-2006, 10:00 AM

While I like Herm's attitude, I'll point out that pretty much any defense would be dominant if it had 14 players.
:LOL: LMAO :LOL: LMAO

StcChief

10-03-2006, 10:03 AM

Is Herm the anti-DV. is he gonna let the Offense rot while he drafts more DT/CBs?

Easy 6

10-03-2006, 10:05 AM

Maybe we can turn Page into a corner and Law into a safety in a couple years.
Thats been my dream for Law since he got here, just like guys like R. Woodson he should be able to go back there and play at an All-Pro level for several years.

jAZ

10-03-2006, 10:05 AM

Seems like the consensus is that in order to be a dominant defense, all we need is at 2 dominant DT's.

That seems akin to saying in order to be a millionaire, all I need is $900,000.

It's good to have $100,000 but that last $900,000 is going to be the tricky part.

keg in kc

10-03-2006, 10:09 AM

Is Herm the anti-DV. is he gonna let the Offense rot while he drafts more DT/CBs?How is that the Anti-DV? By not drafting FBs in addition to DTs and DBs?

Hog Farmer

10-03-2006, 10:29 AM

We need three pocket pushers on the line. That's it.

unlurking

10-03-2006, 10:33 AM

Seems like the consensus is that in order to be a dominant defense, all we need is at 2 dominant DT's.

That seems akin to saying in order to be a millionaire, all I need is $900,000.

It's good to have $100,000 but that last $900,000 is going to be the tricky part.
More like needing 2 or 3 hundred K. With Hali, Allen, Mitchell, DJ, Law, Surtain we already have 600k or so. At the same time, Page, Pollard, or Fox may put us to within a 100k (we just don't know there true value yet).

Also, I think we only need one DT. Two would be nice, but one would suffice with the guys we have now.

StcChief

10-03-2006, 10:35 AM

How is that the Anti-DV? By not drafting FBs in addition to DTs and DBs?
Letting TRich go hoping Cruz is the new FB, haven't seen that working well.

But from 2007 on....How does he address the team needs. on both sides of the ball.

Don't get me wrong, I like what has been done so far, but this 3 players away from Dominating on D statement is BS.
We need a balanced team. Not a #1-5 D with O that is dead in the water.

OL is getting older by the day, hoping Shields,Wiegmann,Waters make it thru 2006.

Cormac

10-03-2006, 10:36 AM

• The Chiefs are third in the NFL in total defense, allowing 240 yards per game.

•They are sixth in points allowed per game (10.7).

•They have not allowed a touchdown in 10 quarters.

•They have allowed only one play all year longer than 25 yards.

I don't care what we need right now. Those are some amazing stats. Kudos where it's due.

Chiefnj

10-03-2006, 10:36 AM

So what the staff is saying is, after given 4 Pro Bowl caliber free agents and 2 first round draft picks all they need is 3 more free agents/early draft picks to build a dominant defense. Given that much talent even Al Davis could field a competitive defense.

Brock

10-03-2006, 10:36 AM

Letting TRich go hoping Cruz is the new FB, haven't seen that working well.

I haven't seen it working badly, either.

ChiTown

10-03-2006, 10:44 AM

I haven't seen it working badly, either.

I don't think it's been that rough of a transition at all. Cruz probably isn't the lead blocker that TRich is, but his pass blocking looked pretty damn good.

htismaqe

10-03-2006, 10:47 AM

More like needing 2 or 3 hundred K. With Hali, Allen, Mitchell, DJ, Law, Surtain we already have 600k or so. At the same time, Page, Pollard, or Fox may put us to within a 100k (we just don't know there true value yet).

Also, I think we only need one DT. Two would be nice, but one would suffice with the guys we have now.

Exactly.

We need a DT and that's it.

ChiTown

10-03-2006, 10:50 AM

Exactly.

We need a DT and that's it.

We need a disrupter at DT. We have a few serviceable pieces at DT right now, but we're not where we need to be. The beauty of this is, is that we can get that guy either through the draft or FA. DT isn't a position that takes that much time to learn at the pro level. Although, Sims is really doing his best to disprove that theory........

Lzen

10-03-2006, 10:51 AM

So what the staff is saying is, after given 4 Pro Bowl caliber free agents and 2 first round draft picks all they need is 3 more free agents/early draft picks to build a dominant defense. Given that much talent even Al Davis could field a competitive defense.

Heh, which ones are the Pro Bowl caliber? Oh, you mean Knight? He hasn't played at a Pro Bowl caliber level here. Bell? He hasn't even played at the level of a starter. Law? He's been playing well. Surtain? He didn't exactly look like a Pro Bowler last year. He's been better this year. Your argument is kinda deceptive.

Lzen

10-03-2006, 10:53 AM

We need a disrupter at DT. We have a few serviceable pieces at DT right now, but we're not where we need to be. The beauty of this is, is that we can get that guy either through the draft or FA. DT isn't a position that takes that much time to learn at the pro level. Although, Sims is really doing his best to disprove that theory........

True. I want to blame the previous coaching staff, but everyone had Sims high on their draft boards. Of course, our defensive coaches from the past might have messed him up in the head. Or maybe he is just simply a bust. Either way, I think Herm and Gun know what a good DT looks like and they will take care of that next year.

StcChief

10-03-2006, 10:55 AM

I don't think it's been that rough of a transition at all. Cruz probably isn't the lead blocker that TRich is, but his pass blocking looked pretty damn good.

Cruz can block but for the difference in $ to keep TRich ????

On D,,, a DT is really about all we need now.

CB/LB later.

The OL is stll my concern at LT,RT, soon LG.

We looked great against a bad SF DL.

Let's see how we do against Pittsburg/Seattle.

Kerberos

10-03-2006, 10:58 AM

Bell, Sims and Knight are the guys that gotta be replaced.

And this is coming from the guy that said Hali was a wasted pick in the round we picked him. :rolleyes:

J/K

.

ct

10-03-2006, 11:22 AM

2DTs and a S

ChiefsCountry

10-03-2006, 11:24 AM

The funny thing is, we're about 3 players away from having a dominant offense, too.

FAX

LT, QB, WR

keg in kc

10-03-2006, 11:25 AM

Letting TRich go hoping Cruz is the new FB, haven't seen that working well.

But from 2007 on....How does he address the team needs. on both sides of the ball.

Don't get me wrong, I like what has been done so far, but this 3 players away from Dominating on D statement is BS.
We need a balanced team. Not a #1-5 D with O that is dead in the water.

OL is getting older by the day, hoping Shields,Wiegmann,Waters make it thru 2006.The point was that I thought it was funny (in a haha way) that you said he was the anti-DV because he'd draft DTs and CBs and ignore the offense. 'cause...that's what DV did, in the draft. He drafted DTs, DBs (primarily safeties, although there was Battle) and FBs, and ignored offensive need positions, except for when CP went against him and drafted LJ. All our offensive talent (excluding again LJ) came through free agency.

That's the biggest misperception that people show when they talk about DV. He didn't ignore the defense; he made bad decisions, whether in hiring coaches, hiring free agents or making draft selections. Hiring Greg Robinson and then waiting an extra year to fire him...mistake. Hiring all those "good ol' boy" defensive assistants...mistake. Missing on Sims and Freeman in the same draft, a year after missing on Downing...mistake. Missing on Julian Battle...mistake. All day 1 picks, all defense. That's the problem, not that he didn't try to do anything, but that he did the wrong things. Losing all those picks, particularly, hurt us, and not necessarily just on defense.

And hell, when we did pick on offense, we missed there, too. Snoop Minnis? Kris Wilson?

If there's one glaring thing about DV's tenure here, it's the fact that we failed - repeatedly - on day 1 of the draft. Whether it was an offensive player or a defensive player. And the one good pick we did make....wasn't DV's pick. I say that was because the staff (DV, Saunders, Robinson) got hard-on's for players they saw, whether it was at the Senior Bowl or at pro days or because of phone calls from buddies like John Bunting, and made their minds up without listening to the Chiefs' scouting staff. Because, as usual, we did okay on day two...

That, in the end is the failure of the Vermiel years: the draft.

So far, Herm hasn't done any of that. He hasn't really had time to... But what he did do was keep the offensive staff intact as much as possible (as if Saunders was going to stay after not getting the job, so let's not go there...). We'll see what happens next offseason, now that players are starting to retire on the offensive side of the ball.

el borracho

10-03-2006, 11:35 AM

3 D players = 2 DTs (which we don't have) and a S (which we may already have). Hopefully, our older CBs can keep producing long enough to fix these problems and our O problems (2 Ts, a G, a C and a WR) and make a run for the championship before Carl and Herm disappear and we start all over.

Easy 6

10-03-2006, 11:39 AM

Great post keg.

Cormac

10-03-2006, 12:21 PM

The point was that I thought it was funny (in a haha way) that you said he was the anti-DV because he'd draft DTs and CBs and ignore the offense. 'cause...that's what DV did, in the draft. He drafted DTs, DBs (primarily safeties, although there was Battle) and FBs, and ignored offensive need positions, except for when CP went against him and drafted LJ. All our offensive talent (excluding again LJ) came through free agency.

That's the biggest misperception that people show when they talk about DV. He didn't ignore the defense; he made bad decisions, whether in hiring coaches, hiring free agents or making draft selections. Hiring Greg Robinson and then waiting an extra year to fire him...mistake. Hiring all those "good ol' boy" defensive assistants...mistake. Missing on Sims and Freeman in the same draft, a year after missing on Downing...mistake. Missing on Julian Battle...mistake. All day 1 picks, all defense. That's the problem, not that he didn't try to do anything, but that he did the wrong things. Losing all those picks, particularly, hurt us, and not necessarily just on defense.

And hell, when we did pick on offense, we missed there, too. Snoop Minnis? Kris Wilson?

If there's one glaring thing about DV's tenure here, it's the fact that we failed - repeatedly - on day 1 of the draft. Whether it was an offensive player or a defensive player. And the one good pick we did make....wasn't DV's pick. I say that was because the staff (DV, Saunders, Robinson) got hard-on's for players they saw, whether it was at the Senior Bowl or at pro days or because of phone calls from buddies like John Bunting, and made their minds up without listening to the Chiefs' scouting staff. Because, as usual, we did okay on day two...

That, in the end is the failure of the Vermiel years: the draft.

So far, Herm hasn't done any of that. He hasn't really had time to... But what he did do was keep the offensive staff intact as much as possible (as if Saunders was going to stay after not getting the job, so let's not go there...). We'll see what happens next offseason, now that players are starting to retire on the offensive side of the ball.

Great post! :clap:

One thing though, let's not forget the DJ and Kawika picks - good day 1 picks.

htismaqe

10-03-2006, 12:30 PM

3 D players = 2 DTs (which we don't have) and a S (which we may already have). Hopefully, our older CBs can keep producing long enough to fix these problems and our O problems (2 Ts, a G, a C and a WR) and make a run for the championship before Carl and Herm disappear and we start all over.

Why is everybody overlooking James Reed? Do people long so bad for big name that they just ignore what he's doing on the field?

Easy 6

10-03-2006, 12:32 PM

Why is everybody overlooking James Reed? Do people long so bad for big name that they just ignore what he's doing on the field?
................................... :thumb: .......................................

Easy 6

10-03-2006, 12:36 PM

Why is everybody overlooking James Reed? Do people long so bad for big name that they just ignore what he's doing on the field?
It happens dozens of times every year................nobodys become somebodys. I think its happening with Reed to.